Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

I had got this working but I just upgraded the kernel to 3.5.4-1 and now reboot powers off again. (kdmrc is set to use systemctl reboot rather than the default.) On the other hand, I never knew what fixed this problem in the first place. Is anyone else seeing this?

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Ok, after having studied this thread, allow me, the average "invisible user" (this is my first-ever post on the forum), to give my two cents/pennies/crowns/what-have-you to this debate.

As usual, it seems to me that the main problem in the debate is that only extremes are displayed; the posters are generally "born again" systemd users (i.e. fanboys/Zealots), or extreme "haters" (i.e. Dissenters), with very little middle-ground.

I don't think it wierd that the devs are fanboys; in fact, it is to be expected. They were, after all, the ones making the decision to switch over to systemd in the first place. I would be very suprised if they did it for any other reason than that they liked it, thought it better, and wanted to use it (and before anyone goes "Linux is POLITICS!!!1one1!!", sure, sometimes Linux is (unfortunatley) politics, but I highly doubt that it is in this case).

Neither is it wierd that there are a lot of Dissenters (i.e. "haters"), as people generally fear change. However, unfortunatley, most "haters" are extremely angry, irrational, emotional and near-mad posters who do not post valid arguments, but rather go on mad rants about how everything is bad, the world is ending, and they are quitting the internet (read: Arch) forever (and, for some reason, have severly lacking grammar and spelling compared to the fanboys).

I think there is middle ground to be had, as while the world won't end because of the switch to systemd, it won't solve all the worlds problems and make linux a perfect OS either.

I'm an average pseudo/wannabe-poweruser. I grew up using windows, didn't even have to learn DOS properly. I can't code for shit and I can barely script (yes, I still use Arch as my day-to-day OS on some of my hardware, and then primarily as a desktop/workstation). I like for things to work OOTB, but I also love to learn, and for this, Arch Linux and it's excellent wiki seemed (and has, so far, been) a good choice to me. Plus, I love control and minimalist systems, and with Arch, I could pretty much literally build my own system from the ground up, without a single line of code entering my OS without having gotten my approval for doing so (and besides, who doesn't love pacman?). So yes, Arch was pretty much my first real attempt at Linux, and so far it's been going well.However, I don't use the AUR, I rarely (if ever) write my own scripts, and I don't code anything. The only thing I can say is that I'm a philosophy major, and sometimes enjoy reading about "Computer/Coding Philosophy" in general, e.g. the KISS principle.

As there has been a lot of debate over that, allow me to clear one thing out; ANY Coding Philosophy is like the bible; it is not written by real philosophers, but by other people, doing other things (e.g. coding), and as such, is interpretable. The fanboys yelling "All haters have misunderstood KISS" are just as wrong as the Dissenters themselves, yelling "systemd is not KISS". KISS is a principle, a scripture; it has a mythology and practice based around itself, it has it's believers and it's un-believers, and it is open to interpretation. There is no "one true" interpretation of KISS.

With this said, I believe that what many of the Dissenters think makes systemd "un-KISS" is the fact that it's configuration is spread out over several directories/files. While I personally don't know if I would say that makes it "un-KISS", I will say this; this is a valid argument, that deserves to be taken seriously.One of the main advantages (to me personally, obviously) with Arch over other distros, was rc.conf. I fell in love with it just as fast as lady Pacman had me wrapped around her gorgeous, optimized finger. I loved how basically all the (again, to me) essentials of the system could be configured here, how it was so central, simple... It was a file I could call home. Centralizing configuration and minimizing the amount of files/directories that need to be created/modified is almost never a bad thing, or so I would say (and I do believe that many people would agree with me on this). Here, systemd is at a disadvantage compared to sysvinit, as it de-centralizes configuration options (and before anyone yells "but it's better! better optimized! better this! better that!", sure, that it might be, but that is not relevant to this argument; this is an argument about centralization and logistics, not about optimization, speed or functionality).This argument needs to be taken seriously.

Another thing that should be taken seriously is the fact that it adds complexity. And I don't mean code complexity or any such thing, for I know nothing of code, but complexity in configuration. In rc.conf, I would add/remove my daemons, start/blacklist my modules etcetera, and now, I have to muck about with a bunch of different files, learn new directories, create new files every time I want to add/change something etcetera.This argument, however, I find that the devs could easily counter with the usual gung-ho "Arch/Linux in general/Oatmeal Cookies are not meant for you, user, and it's not meant to be easy or user-friendly from your point of view; if you don't like it, go home and cry/GTF back to Windows".Whether this attitude is ultimatley beneficial for anyone is a separate matter of debate, but for better or worse, this is the attitude adopted by Arch, it's devs, and most of it's influential userbase. Hence, I find that the argument of added complexity for the user is invalid (although the Powerusers/Linux Paladins might be a little bit nicer in their posts when they explain this to those of us who are not coders ourselves).

Another argument is the matter of "seamlessness". Upgrading to systemd is a rather daunting task, and surely not entirely without it's pains. This argument could probably also be countered with the above "Learn2hax or GTFO"-argument. So, while it is an invalid argument, I do believe that measures could be taken to ease the transition for the average invisible user. I haven't read the wiki article on transitioning from sysvinit to systemd, but I am quite confident that if it isn't already updated and useable, it will soon be; the Arch wiki rarely dissapoints. Aside form that, maybe some scripts or something similiar could be made in order to automate some of the process of transitioning (again, I know that "automation" and "end-user friendliness" is something wierd and frightening to the Poweruser, equalled in it's power against them only by the word "GUI", but I'm just making suggestions and trying to explain the thoughts of the common Dissenters).

From an end-user standpoint, I believe these to be the only relevant arguments; much of what the Zealots write is irrelevant to the end-user unless he (or she) is a coder or "1337 hax0r" him- or herself, which is something that they need to understand. Not everyone understands why "23 lines of code separated into 2 files and 3 symlinks" is better than "2 lines of code spread over 234 symlinks".On that note, something that the Dissenters need to understand is that if they're not "1337 hax0rz" or coders themselves, they're not really invited to the Arch Linux party. Sure, they're allowed to stand in the corner and look at the cool kids, occasionally grabbing a bit of food casually thrown away by one of the cool kids, but they're not welcome to sit at the table and share the drinks.

This might sound elitist, and that's because it is. But for better or worse, that is the case with Arch Linux. If you want to stay, you will have to evolve and learn. I myself might agree that the Zealots are often very unfriendly, new-user-aggressive, and too dimissive of newbies; but such is the case. If you really want to change that attitude, learn to be a "1337 hax0r" yourself, and be one of the first friendly Powerusers in the community. Help the newbies, reply with something other than "RTFM", write helpful scripts, be generally friendly... Be the White Knight. Not all Paladins are also Zealots.

With that said, I do not intend to stoke any resident flames, nor do I intrinsically intend to offend anyone. If you feel the need to post "OMG u r teh n00b and need to GTFO because systemd is perfect and nothing could ever be wrong with it", chances are you are a Zealot. If you feel the need to post "OMG u r teh fanboi and u do not realize that systemd is nothing but bad and is Evil Incarnate", chances are you are a Dissenter.

Don't be a Dissenter. Don't be a Zealot.

Last edited by incassum (2012-09-19 09:08:23)

"I call him Free who is led solely by Reason." -Baruch Spinoza"If man makes himself a worm, he must not complain when trodden on." -Immanuel Kant"We are all worthless, mortality does not exist, free will is an illusion and there is no meaning to existence; Nihilism is the Great Victor. Hence I strive." -incassum

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Get a blog, man.... that's WAY too long for the forums.

Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

incassum wrote:

"OMG u r teh n00b and need to GTFO because systemd is perfect and nothing could ever be wrong with it" ..."OMG u r teh fanboi and u do not realize that systemd is nothing but bad and is Evil Incarnate"

I hope that anyone that posts like that get a several year ban so they can grow up and/or learn English.

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

incassum wrote:

As usual, it seems to me that the main problem in the debate is that only extremes are displayed; the posters are generally "born again" systemd users (i.e. fanboys/Zealots), or extreme "haters" (i.e. Dissenters), with very little middle-ground.

I'm clearly biased, but in my experience, there is a lot of middle ground (i.e., people who when presented with systemd says "hm, sounds nice enough, but I don't care that much. If it is the default i'll use it, if not I won't"). As for the rest of us, there are the people (like myself) who strongly believe systemd is a net win for Arch, there are the people who strongly believe systemd is a net loss for Arch (both rational positions imo), and there are the bat-shit crazy people who think we are all secretly bribed by RedHat to kill their firstborns (in terms of American politics: think of the "birther" movement).

it won't solve all the worlds problems and make linux a perfect OS either.

I don't think anyone can claim that systemd is perfect, or will make Linux perfect. The only claim along those lines is that it is significantly superior to all the current alternatives. And that our current system is so limited that a change is necessary.

I'm an average pseudo/wannabe-poweruser. I grew up using windows, didn't even have to learn DOS properly. I can't code for shit and I can barely script (yes, I still use Arch as my day-to-day OS on some of my hardware, and then primarily as a desktop/workstation). I like for things to work OOTB, but I also love to learn, and for this, Arch Linux and it's excellent wiki seemed (and has, so far, been) a good choice to me. Plus, I love control and minimalist systems, and with Arch, I could pretty much literally build my own system from the ground up, without a single line of code entering my OS without having gotten my approval for doing so (and besides, who doesn't love pacman?). So yes, Arch was pretty much my first real attempt at Linux, and so far it's been going well.However, I don't use the AUR, I rarely (if ever) write my own scripts, and I don't code anything.

Essentially me too (except that I admittedly write some code from time to time).

The only thing I can say is that I'm a philosophy major, and sometimes enjoy reading about "Computer/Coding Philosophy" in general, e.g. the KISS principle.

"Coding philosophy" without any "coding" sounds like a dangerous combination, but you are the professional so I'll trust you know what you are doing ;-)

With this said, I believe that what many of the Dissenters think makes systemd "un-KISS" is the fact that it's configuration is spread out over several directories/files. While I personally don't know if I would say that makes it "un-KISS", I will say this; this is a valid argument, that deserves to be taken seriously.One of the main advantages (to me personally, obviously) with Arch over other distros, was rc.conf. I fell in love with it just as fast as lady Pacman had me wrapped around her gorgeous, optimized finger. I loved how basically all the (again, to me) essentials of the system could be configured here, how it was so central, simple... It was a file I could call home. Centralizing configuration and minimizing the amount of files/directories that need to be created/modified is almost never a bad thing, or so I would say (and I do believe that many people would agree with me on this). Here, systemd is at a disadvantage compared to sysvinit, as it de-centralizes configuration options (and before anyone yells "but it's better! better optimized! better this! better that!", sure, that it might be, but that is not relevant to this argument; this is an argument about centralization and logistics, not about optimization, speed or functionality).This argument needs to be taken seriously.

I agree that the configuration system should be evaluated on its own merits. However, I don't agree that the comparison is "simplicity" versus "speed" or anything like that. The comparison is between two notions of simplicity (or elegance or whatever word you want to use). rc.conf had the philosophy "everything can be configured in one file" (though this was never taken to its conclusion and we never actually had only one configuration file and many things could be configured several places) systemd has the philosophy "one file per conceptually related options and nothing is configured in more than one place". I clearly favor the latter (as I have been pushing that in initscripts even before we moved to systemd) both from a conceptual point of view and from a practical point of view (I won't go into the argument as it has been repeated many enough times).

Another thing that should be taken seriously is the fact that it adds complexity. And I don't mean code complexity or any such thing, for I know nothing of code, but complexity in configuration. In rc.conf, I would add/remove my daemons, start/blacklist my modules etcetera, and now, I have to muck about with a bunch of different files, learn new directories, create new files every time I want to add/change something etcetera.This argument, however, I find that the devs could easily counter with the usual gung-ho "Arch/Linux in general/Oatmeal Cookies are not meant for you, user, and it's not meant to be easy or user-friendly from your point of view; if you don't like it, go home and cry/GTF back to Windows".Whether this attitude is ultimatley beneficial for anyone is a separate matter of debate, but for better or worse, this is the attitude adopted by Arch, it's devs, and most of it's influential userbase. Hence, I find that the argument of added complexity for the user is invalid (although the Powerusers/Linux Paladins might be a little bit nicer in their posts when they explain this to those of us who are not coders ourselves).

I don't think this is a case where "GTF back to Windows" is an appropriate response. Mainly because the problem you are describing is not "i no longer know how to use my computer", but merely "i find the new way less convenient".

What we aim for (and this I think you might appreciate based on what you wrote above), is not necessarily only the ease (or the lack of complexity) of configuring the system, but the ease of _understanding_ the system.

Take module blacklisting. In the old rc.conf you needed to understand rc.conf++ as we added a layer of abstraction above modprobe to deal with blacklisting (but it did not completely encapsulate the underlying modprobe behavior, so you still needed to understand that too). With the new initscripts and also with systemd we essentially removed the abstraction layer, so you no longer configure blacklisting in rc.conf, rather you just configure the underlying tool (modprobe).

Moreover, by now splitting up the configuration in separate files, each corresponding to separate tools, we also have an easier time making the documentation of each of them better and clearer, so you now have a manpage for each tool/file as well as the "archlinux" manpage and the "rc.conf" manpage explaining the big picture (and similarly for systemd).

Another argument is the matter of "seamlessness". Upgrading to systemd is a rather daunting task, and surely not entirely without it's pains.

There are still open bugs, and there might of course also be unknown bugs. However, bugs aside, the task should not be too daunting: add "init=/bin/systemd" to your GRUB/syslinux kernel commandline and you are done.

This argument could probably also be countered with the above "Learn2hax or GTFO"-argument.

Perhaps. However, I prefer to make the transition seamless to the extent possible. Let me know if you encounter problems/confusion.

From an end-user standpoint, I believe these to be the only relevant arguments; much of what the Zealots write is irrelevant to the end-user unless he (or she) is a coder or "1337 hax0r" him- or herself, which is something that they need to understand. Not everyone understands why "23 lines of code separated into 2 files and 3 symlinks" is better than "2 lines of code spread over 234 symlinks".

I don't get that sentence either if that is any consolation...

You should not need to be an expert to get the benefits of systemd. If you are willing to learn the new configuration format (the same which has been introduced already in initscripts), and you are willing to use "systemctl start/stop daemon.service" rather than adding "daemon" to your DAEMONS array, then the hard part is over. Then you could just enjoy a somewhat faster and more robust system without thinking more about it, or you could take advantage of the posibilities systemd presents of learning more about your system due to its finegrained functionality and excellent documentation (either way you never have to write or read any code).

An important point is that whenever people comment on the architecture/code/design of systemd (or any other software for that matter), it is a reasonable expectation that they have some basic idea of what they are talking about. If not, then the answer might not necessarily be very friendly (especially if the comment is in the form of overly negative/unhelpful criticism).

This might sound elitist, and that's because it is. But for better or worse, that is the case with Arch Linux. If you want to stay, you will have to evolve and learn. I myself might agree that the Zealots are often very unfriendly, new-user-aggressive, and too dimissive of newbies; but such is the case. If you really want to change that attitude, learn to be a "1337 hax0r" yourself, and be one of the first friendly Powerusers in the community. Help the newbies, reply with something other than "RTFM", write helpful scripts, be generally friendly... Be the White Knight. Not all Paladins are also Zealots.

As is evidenced by our excellent wiki (which I admittedly don't contribute to myself), there are plenty of White Knights already, but of course we can never have too many ;-)

With that said, I do not intend to stoke any resident flames, nor do I intrinsically intend to offend anyone. If you feel the need to post "OMG u r teh n00b and need to GTFO because systemd is perfect and nothing could ever be wrong with it", chances are you are a Zealot. If you feel the need to post "OMG u r teh fanboi and u do not realize that systemd is nothing but bad and is Evil Incarnate", chances are you are a Dissenter.

To be honest I do not think your polarized description of our community is very accurate, nor very productive (if anything it might just lead to more conflict).

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

tomegun wrote:

With that said, I do not intend to stoke any resident flames, nor do I intrinsically intend to offend anyone. If you feel the need to post "OMG u r teh n00b and need to GTFO because systemd is perfect and nothing could ever be wrong with it", chances are you are a Zealot. If you feel the need to post "OMG u r teh fanboi and u do not realize that systemd is nothing but bad and is Evil Incarnate", chances are you are a Dissenter.

To be honest I do not think your polarized description of our community is very accurate, nor very productive (if anything it might just lead to more conflict).

It's obvious that linux- (which is already a niche) distros like Arch (which is used by a niche in the niche) attracts extreme personalities, and certainly a higher percentage of people with OCD-like tendencies.

On one side there is a particularly large group of skilled INTJ programmer-types with often limited social skills, either because they don't care, because they're highly egocentric, or because they're poorly capable of showing empathy. They are what you could call the geek-libertarians, the über-meritocrats and scratch-your-own-itchers.

The other extreme are the people with entitlement issues, the far left, the people with tin-foil hats. This group is both sceptical and afraid about any form of outside influence and is also particularly well-represented.

Both groups have a tendency to show escapist, single-minded or autistic behaviour, and are underrepresented and often underperforming in the real world. Generally speaking they're just a bunch of social misfits.

Ofcourse there is a middle group as well, but they are either much less skilled and influential than the one group, and much less vocal than the other. Most people in the real world have stuff to do, lives to live, this whole thread (any many others like it) just shows how ridiculous it really gets. Like who friggin' cares if you have dbus installed on your system or not? Get real!

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

It's like that. A philosophy student pops up and everyone starts questioning the backgrounds for the sake of "having a look at the larger scale". This always happens, when one of them steps up, everybody ends up knowing that they know nothing. Knowing how little you know is a great way of seing things differently, standing in the middle of events - or even on the outside, watching the scene - is convenient. While this neither changes the fact, that Arch will switch to systemd, nor will this comforting insight combat the flaws of systemd, polkit and other "free"desktop inventions of the past years, it gives me a great reason to follow the trails of my spiritually predecessors and step up to unleash an argumentum ad homminem on those, who study philosophy, because they are a threat to net neutrality, because of their long posts. I can see the headline… AT&T blocks text transfer, unless plan upgraded, $9,90.

This puts me in a difficult situation. While totally agreeing with your message, I feel this weird hostility against philosophy students between the third semester and their final paper. This is - of course - my problem and totally unrelated to the fact, that many people don't like fundamental changes, even if they had been discussed up and down on the mailing lists, in AUR package comments, in the systemd thread here and probably on the IRC as well.

I also do not recognize, how my grudge against the philosophical infantry could have anything to do with the fact, that removing a symlink can be done in a single line without breaking anything, while a bash script, that adds a daemon to the rc.conf poses a higher threat to an archer's good night's sleep for more users, than even I would be willing to admit, if I was forced to at gunpoint.

Every time contrasts show up, around 20% of the population will devide into more or less equal groups and wind that contrast into an antagonism. They will discuss it up and down, fight over it and even use any means necessary to be right, while the majority really does not give a flying turd. Some of them think they care, but that is just the thrill of participating in the public opinion, the internet grants us generously.

And guess what? I blame the philosophy students.

EDIT: How does that look? Smartmouthing people and then have typhoos and grammer wrongings!

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Thanks for the excellent readers digest version WorMzy.

I'm not sure if this is a concern troll or a Texas Longhorn Lecture: a point here and a point there with a lot of bull inbetween.

I'm definitely one of the in-betweeners who was reluctant to try systemd. But it works well. I'd find it inappropriate to complain about the seasoning used on a grand dinner that has been prepared by others and offered freely to me.

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Wow, shit just got real, huh? Anyhoo, as I see it, systemd need not be a matter of polar extremes; what incassum may be observing is the disparity between popular and vocal opinion. With any popular mass medium--but particularly with regard to the internet--it can be easy to (erringly) see the condensed opinions of a handful of people as a representative sample of the general public. In reality, the simple fact is that the most extreme opinions are always the most vocal, given the opinion holder's passionate stance on the subject. I suspect many folks here take the same approach to systemd that I do: It's structurally simple (though a bit more inconvenient) and, when tweaked to the user's liking, works just fine. My machine boots, the services I want started start--and nothing more--and that's good enough for me. The reasons the devs have decided to push ahead with systemd integration are technical, not philosophical, and for those wishing to avoid systemd on philosophical grounds there are alternatives that can be implemented fairly easily (at least in the sense that nothing Arch-specific stands in the way). Systemd can be simple, is modular, and works as well as someone who hasn't contributed anything to it can expect, and all this despite my previous objections to it. Ignorance of something is no reason to dismiss it (and even less reason to opine on it), and who wrote systemd's code and who's implementing it are beyond irrelevant. A year ago, I thought otherwise; after using it for a while, I've changed my mind.

[OT] @incassum: Sweet, another humanities major who's also an Arch geek! I'm a history major myself, but I'm enough of a computer geek that I've (very gradually) been delving into coding over the last several months. It's totally worth it, even if only because it lets one delve that much deeper into one's system and tweak things a little more to one's liking. As a philosophy major, you might absorb the details faster than I do, since the keywords and operators of any programming language essentially just function as logical qualifiers and operators. Every command and function you write can essentially be placed into three categories: Simple instructions (commands, statements), branches (conditionals, conjunctions, disjunctions) and loops (biconditionals, booleans). So basically, you can maybe look at coding as an exercise in honing one's logical and critical thinking skills. One of the reasons I was attracted to Arch is its notion of simplicity, and structural simplicity is just as important in thought, argumentation and communication as it is in software.

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Trilby wrote:

Thanks for the excellent readers digest version WorMzy.

I'm not sure if this is a concern troll or a Texas Longhorn Lecture: a point here and a point there with a lot of bull inbetween.

I'm definitely one of the in-betweeners who was reluctant to try systemd. But it works well. I'd find it inappropriate to complain about the seasoning used on a grand dinner that has been prepared by others and offered freely to me.

On top of that, it's not like you use systemctl 57 times a day.

Me personally, I think that some people have too much spare time, because I don't understand the reason to be so concerned with the switch from sysvinit .Systemd is an init system -- if it boots, it's OK. Forget about it. Is it really much trouble to type systemctl start <...> instead of /etc/rc.d/<...> once a month?

Arch Linux is more than just GNU/Linux -- it's an adventurepkill -9 systemd

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

It's the bumps that are getting me rather than the theory. That is, I had just started to think I sort of maybe was starting to get how things worked - at least some bits of things - and now it feels like I'm back at square one...

Maybe square 1.5. I've persuaded my system to sleep only once on lid close and it wakes OK.

But it seems a bit random. I had got rebooting working OK but now it has gone again. The trouble is, I don't feel I know my way around enough to have any idea whether this is the result of an update or user error. I strongly suspect the latter, though. It isn't a terrible problem. It just shuts down rather than rebooting but it annoys me that I can't get a handle on *why* it does that!

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

litemotiv wrote:

It's obvious that linux- (which is already a niche) distros like Arch (which is used by a niche in the niche) attracts extreme personalities, and certainly a higher percentage of people with OCD-like tendencies.

On one side there is a particularly large group of skilled INTJ programmer-types with often limited social skills, either because they don't care, because they're highly egocentric, or because they're poorly capable of showing empathy. They are what you could call the geek-libertarians, the über-meritocrats and scratch-your-own-itchers.

The other extreme are the people with entitlement issues, the far left, the people with tin-foil hats. This group is both sceptical and afraid about any form of outside influence and is also particularly well-represented.

Both groups have a tendency to show escapist, single-minded or autistic behaviour, and are underrepresented and often underperforming in the real world. Generally speaking they're just a bunch of social misfits.

Wow, now I understand why I'm using Arch

Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Imho, both sides of the discussion have some fine (technical) arguments to defend their position. But in the end, it's the developers who make the decision. It has been brought up before: the (Arch) linux community is not a democracy, but an oligarchy and I'm glad I don't have to vote for every package bump. Thank you devs for making sound decisions for me.

Trilby wrote:

a Texas Longhorn Lecture: a point here and a point there with a lot of bull inbetween.

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Systemd is a must replacement because sysvinit doesn't hold up to requirements of the present day.

Actually, being a collection of quickly hacked and put together shell scripts it never worked *properly* in the first place. So whatever inconvenience one may experience during transition is simply a price to pay for bad *design* decisions made in the past.

Shell scripts never were intended to be used as a *base* building blocks for a service supervisor: they are easily error prone, tedious to write and fail to provide even half of possibilites which could be obtained with a proper service manager. Concurrent service startup? Background startup? Custom action execution upon certain events? If a service hangs during startup / shutdown or due to hardware / configuration issues the entire sysvinit system will hung up. I am not even bringing a topic of how those scripts are usually made: different indentation and coding style, inconsistent actions and PID management. Couple it together with distribution differences in file systems and we have one huge unfortunate mess.

So whoever dislikes systemd is most likely don't understand something from above.

For that tasks systemd is a clear winner and a *much* better soulution and alternative to upstart.

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

grnt wrote:

Shell scripts never were intended to be used as a *base* building blocks for a service supervisor: they are easily error prone, tedious to write and fail to provide even half of possibilites which could be obtained with a proper service manager.

Well the shell scripting languages are Turing complete, so of their own accord, there's nothing that they must fail at providing.

grnt wrote:

So whoever dislikes systemd is most likely don't understand something from above.

I haven't seen many people arguing that sysvinit is better. If systemd was released as only an init system, I would switch to it in a heartbeat. The dangerous thing is the mentality with which it is being developed - replacing small well defined tools with one big tool and bundling itself with one of the most standard and widely used, userspace tools in the Linux world.

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

ConnorBehan wrote:

The dangerous thing is the mentality with which it is being developed - replacing small well defined tools with one big tool and bundling itself with one of the most standard and widely used, userspace tools in the Linux world.

Can systemd really be called a one big tool though? A lot of the functionality in systemd is divided into their own small binaries/processes and so on.